Busting the Truth Wide Open

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/resistanceradio
Tod Fletcher (assisted David Ray Griffin on writing 8 books and co-producer of "Guns and Butter") has invited me on his radio show,
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/resistanceradio
this Thursday at noon(Pacific) to talk about cognitive infiltration in the Truth Movement. This ought to be a very, very interesting show. Please give it a listen.
John
- John P's blog
- Login to post comments

Thanks John and welcome to WTCD!
I'll give it a listen. Thanks for your efforts!
It is about time the fake
It is about time the fake truthers get the light shining on them.
John, were you recently banned at blogger?
You must read the Rock Creek Free Press article "Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working for the Other Side?" from the Nov. 2011 issue.
http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/10/911bloggercom-accused-is-leadin...
I did. I think the article
I did. I think the article is crap.
Right, but that was before
you woke up and then got the shaft yourself.
You said you think the article is crap. Look once again at one of the most central quotes from the Creek article, especially in light of Erik Larson's attack on DRG.
"“The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.
“What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.
“Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.
“The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.
“Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”"
No one has responded or "debunked" this point.
So again, how is this article crap?
Err, can you be more specific?
Other than the disinfo shills at blogger who of course hated it, you're the first person I've heard who didn't give it a big fat thumbs up.
Looking forward to it
Thanks for the heads up
Clarification on this John Parulis post @ '911boggler' perhaps?
Hello Mr. Parulis,
I was wondering if you could elaborate on what you intended by [presumably] your post from Valentine's Day at 911BOGGLER:
John Parulis:
"Justin-John-Vic
Time to boot off the CIT sympathizers from 911blogger. We're egalitarian right...let's put that up to a vote if you will.
Submitted by John_Parulis on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 10:26am.", 0 votes
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-f...
It was also quoted here at WTC-Demo recently (bottom of Gretavo's LOOOONNNG quote, right above the comments):
Loose Nuke (Erik Larson) and Rest of True Faction Clique Launch LIHOP Endgame
Submitted by gretavo on Sat, 2011-02-12 00:02.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3107
I ask because I'm wondering if you were ACTUALLY and SERIOUSLY suggesting a 'democratic' vote at a website/blog so clearly and thoroughly 'rigged' by the oligarchic TrueFaction cabal or if there was possibly some sarcasm or 'irony' there that did not translate well through the 1's and 0's.
Somehow, I see at least one 'disconnect' here...
mrbo
I don't trust the accuracy
I don't trust the accuracy of information coming from CIT. Let's stay focused on building 7 - our strongest case.
I'm starting to loose faith in 9/11 blogs all of them.
hear hear
What I would add is that while CIT has done the movement no favors, there is no need to have a knee-jerk reaction against keeping the case of the Pentagon open under "insufficient data to conclude anything" and defaulting to the OCT as the controlled opposition users at 911blogger and truthaction seem to favor. We start with the physics of the WTC destruction and the more eyes and minds are opened to those undeniable facts the more leverage we have to get to the bottom of what happened elsewhere on 9/11. A public revelation of massive fraud over the WTC not only serves the cause of justice for most of the 9/11 victims, but will also put immense pressure on the powers that be to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt every other aspect of the OCT.
"CIT has done the movement no favors"
How's that? I would like to know what CIT has done wrong, exactly.
Seems to me, CIT has provided about the only independent research of the Pentagon event that clearly and unequivocally disproves the official account ... the eyewitness testimonies recorded and made public by CIT, in my opinion, stand on their own merit, they are plausible, credible, consistent and corroborate each other quite closely.
I think anyone who reviews the work of CIT, carefully, objectively and impartially, cannot help but reach the conclusion presented buy CIT, that a large jet did fly low over the Navy Annex, slightly to the north of the Citgo service station and therefore could not have caused the damage pattern depicted by the official narrative.
The hypothesis of a "flyover" seems to me to be a logical deduction, given the discrepancies in flight path and apparent absence of aircraft debris at the Pentagon.
If I am way off base here, I'd really like to be enlightened as to what I'm missing in this whole debate about CIT.
ok...
"If I am way off base here, I'd really like to be enlightened as to what I'm missing in this whole debate about CIT."
ok
"...the eyewitness testimonies recorded and made public by CIT, in my opinion, stand on their own merit, they are plausible, credible, consistent and corroborate each other quite closely."
All of CIT's "witnesses" claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
They ALL work for either the Pentagon or the Department of the Army.
None of them claim to have seen Flight 77 "fly over" the Pentagon while it seems every single CIT supporter harps on the notion that the CIT "witnesses" must be taken at face value and believed.
Do you understand?
CIT is a textbook example of "beneficial cognitive diversity", helping, in one way or the other, to bring Truth advocates back to the official story, by either acting like A-holes (which they certainly do) and driving people into the waiting arms of Jim Hoffman and Jon Gold, OR they convince others that Flight 77 IS what was seen approaching the Pentagon (which, it was NOT)
any other questions?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
There wasn't a tsunami wave of propaganda
telling people what to believe about a specific flight path, but there was such a propaganda wave w/r to a large plane crashing into the pentagon. Therefore it is entirely likely that the witnesses were deceived about the impact but entirely unlikely that they were all hallucinating the north path.
So that's it ...
All the eyewitnesses claim Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, they also claim it flew north of the Citgo service station.
Do you believe that if the plane flew north of the Citgo it could also cause the damage path depicted by the official narrative?
If the eyewitness are wrong about a particular detail, do you think it's more likely they're wrong about which side of the Citgo the plane flew over, or whether it hit the Pentagon?
What about the police officers who were at the Citgo station when the plane flew over and who were therefore in a position to locate the plane with some precision in relation to the Citgo but could not actually see the Pentagon?
Certainly most of the eyewitness "believed" the plane hit the Pentagon, but in my opinion, it's quite likely they were intentionally deceived by the event, as were most people in the United States and elsewhere around the world.
ergo...
"but in my opinion, it's quite likely"
ergo the entire thrust of CIT's theory is an assumption. You discredit the parts of their "testimony" that you WISH to dismiss in order allow yourself to come to a fixed conclusion. This is not scientific, it's not sound investigation. If you think they could be wrong about what they think they saw hitting the Pentagon, why would you not think they could be wrong about North of the Citgo? Why is that one aspect taken as gospel truth, but the rest of their testimony discounted?
Everything you just said is supposition. "Do I think..." they are wrong about this or that... "Do I believe"... it could cause the damage path.. that is not investigation.
CIT's witnesses do not support their conclusion, ergo their conclusion is wrong OR their "witnesses" are wrong, and if they are unreliable in one facet of the story, they are unreliable in ALL facets of the story.
To think otherwise, is not an investigation, it is cherry-picking to satisfy a pre-conceived narrative. And that is not what the Truth movement is about
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
"In my opinion it's likely"
doesn't mean that I have "come to a fixed conclusion" at all.
I haven't come to any fixed position in relation to the Pentagon event and I don't think you can quote anything I've written that would show otherwise. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I do not discredit any part of the eyewitness testimonies, as I've said before, I accept them at face value, I consider them to be credible, but that doesn't mean I think they are all 100% correct since obviously, people can be mistaken about all sorts of things.
To my mind, it is more about considering the relative likelihood of different possible scenarios, which is why I posited the questions above in terms of "which do you think is more likely?" ... it's not about saying my view is right and you need to agree with me.
I'm just saying, on the balance of probabilities, I think it's more likely that the eyewitnesses at the Citgo we're right about which side of the Citgo the plane flew over and IF the north of Citgo path is inconsistent with the damage path, then it is likely they were wrong about it hitting the Pentagon.
I am not trying to be confrontational, I know you mean well...
... but I have to ask, do you hear yourself?
"I do not discredit any part of the eyewitness testimonies...it is likely they were wrong about it hitting the Pentagon."
If, by your own admission, they "were wrong" about one aspect of their description of an event, is it not possible that they were wrong about another?
cognitive dissonance: "People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior."
I want you to know, that there is another possibility to this event other than just the OCT and Jim Hoffman's and Gregg Roberts' explanation. You know the official story is incorrect.. CIT is NOT the only other option.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
mutually exclusive claims
When witnesses make mutually exclusive claims observers are forced to choose which one to accept. When considering the notion of a north side approach vs impact it becomes clear which of these mutually exclusive claims is more logical to to accept. From CIT's response to Chandler/Cole:
"observers are forced to choose which one to accept"
Yes, and that may include neither. Especially given the distinct possibility that mutually exclusive eyewitness claims may be part of a campaign of cognitive infiltration. The obvious, non-infiltrator position to take is to stop trying to prove what did or did not happen at the Pentagon and put the burden of proof back where it belongs--with those claiming that AA77 hit the Pentagon.
"stop trying to prove what did or did not happen"
I'll go with that, I have no interest in taking a position on the matter, but I'm happy to discuss the issue, I don't think it's a pointless or futile exercise ... I'd like to hear some more opinions on what could have happened at the Pentagon, I do think there's some rich veins of information to be mined ...
Most Likely To Be An Agent Award
"... but I have to ask, do you hear yourself?"
I'm with Willy and 911Blogger on this one. I imagine that Gretavo is probably on board as well.
CIT has done soooo much damage and divisiveness because of their ways. It's so overly bad that I can't even begin to formulate an accurate explanation...in blog-response form...that makes a convincing case to justify my accusations that CIT are agents, disruptors and disinformationalists. Trust me though because my spidey-sense is goin NUTZ on CIT.
I like the current approach to just scrub the testimony and halt any attempt to draw a conclusion from those witnesses that CIT has tainted with overly divisiveness. It's just too much.
911Blogger did right. Craig Ranke and Aldo are so divisive and I think it's ok that 911Blogger banned them in the middle of a heated and important debate about what happened at the Pentagon.
And we should also thank ex-911Bloggers who might currently not be pro-911Blogger for various reasons...but were there when the manipulation and censorship was taking place. Without their silence at that time CIT would have taken over the internet and seriously done some damage.
Hey Jpass
are you serious?
Hi John
Yes, I'm being serious. Sarcastic...but serious.
The arguments against CIT are non-existent. They lack any sort of facts that support the case against them. Just the same old junk-arguments that usually boil down to 'gut-feelings'.
Unless anyone can show different...these two guys (CIT) literally risked their life to gather evidence concerning the attacks on 911. I applaud them as American heroes and distrust anyone who chooses to label them without a single convincing argument to support these accusations. The witnesses should be included in the record without the phony CIT albatross that 911Blogger, WTCDemolition, WillyLoman and others have created.
Are you saying that WTCDemolition is disinfo, JPASS?
Are you saying you don't don't trust WTCDemolition?
"The witnesses should be included in the record..." JPASS
you mean the ones that say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Are you saying they should be included "in the record"?
and you don't trust WTCDemolition? That figures.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
"Are you saying you don't
"Are you saying you don't don't trust WTCDemolition?"
No I'm not saying that.
"you mean the ones that say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Are you saying they should be included "in the record"?"
No Willy. I don't cherry pick my information based on whether or not it jives with the Government's version of events. And by 'the record' I'm talking, generally, about 911 researchers and the information they have access to.
willy, I don't care what anyone thinks
Adam Syed left this site because he could not stand my implication (based on his staunch CIT advocacy) that he could in theory be disinfo. I on the other hand have always been very clear that no one should believe implicitly that I am not disinfo. Advocating violence and deliberately posting crap to make the site or movement look bad are far more problematic to me. Also, having fake truthers create fake blogs and sites where discussion is artificially limited and controlled to give the appearance of consensus is something I find extremely damaging. Having my credibility challenged on the other hand is something I welcome.
the witnesses, sure
the witnesses should be included in the record and there should be no albatross around them because of CIT, agreed. what should have happened was that there should have been an actual investigation and all of these guys should have been on the record from the get go. CIT should not have had to collect their testimony, and their testimony is valid regardless of what CIT is or is not. by valid I mean that they clearly said what they said and that is clearly inconsistent with the official story. bravo for CIT for uncovering this. UNLESS of course CIT and their witnesses are colluding in order to throw a wrench in the truth movement's gears. my position on this has been pretty clear for a while. the testimony they collected certainly makes the flyover+explosives theory look plausible. but it's just as plausible to me that they are an op. why, it's even plausible to me that they are honest but their obnoxious cheerleaders are ops. i'm all about taking what we can from what we have and going from there. what we have thanks to CIT is a situation where witnesses are either a) invalidating the OCT or b) committing fraud in an attempt to invalidate the truth movement (to some extent). we can say no more or less from the available data. well, we can also say that no matter what the truth of the matter is, the arguments about CIT distract from the FACT that the official story has never been proven satisfactorily, and people spend a disproportionate amount of time arguing about their work instead of paying attention to a million other things. i'm personally sick of this debate that never goes anywhere--does anyone here agree?
Yes, I agree
almost entirely with this comment by Gretavo.
The "debate" over CIT within the "truth movement" has become sickening, but I don't blame CIT for that, like JPass said above, I think CIT have done a fantastic job and provided important evidence that should be acknowledged as such, no matter what one thinks of their style.
I also accept the point Gretavo made above, that CIT &/or their eyewitnesses could possibly be colluding to throw a spanner in the works, but I think that possibility is rather unlikely.
I'm not quite sure about the final point Gretavo makes in the comment above, that the CIT debate "never goes anywhere" ... obviously, the CIT debate has generated a lot of angst and discord with the "truth movement" but to my mind, that's because the CIT debate has been intentionally sabotaged by anti-truth provocateurs. I actually think the CIT debate needs to be resuscitated and rehabilitated, because I think it can expose some very important truths about what is happening within the "truth movement", as well as what actually happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.
the award
John, the award was meant for Willy.
And I'm not trying to be dogmatic
If they "were wrong" about one aspect of their description of an event, is it not possible that they were wrong about another? Of course it is, that's why my comment above refers to probabilities ... it's not about being certain, it's about weighing and comparing competing possibilities ... this is simply logic and reasoning, has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance or clever semantics ...
Its neither logical nor reasonable...
to accept part of a witness's testimony and to readily dismiss the other part, simply because it does not fit with your conclusion.
Any trial lawyer will tell you, you cannot put someone on the stand who's testimony directly contradicts the conclusions you are trying to prove.
The curious thing about nearly all of CIT's advocates is that to a person, they each state that we have to "accept the witness's statements" as "scientific fact" (see Deets interview video and various comments for reference)
The witnesses to a man claim they saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This is not supported by available evidence, ergo their testimony, in all aspects, is useless to us.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
((fart noise))
"...ergo their testimony, in all aspects, is useless to us."
Complete and utter BULLSHIT.
Exactly what I have come to expect from certainCIT supporters...
... accusations, guilt by association, straw man arguments... ect. ect. ect.
You go on and support the 13 Pentagon employee "witnesses" who claim that was Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon and that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Hard evidence does not support that conclusion. But, just like most of the OCT, hard evidence does not really apply does it? Just the "scientific" witness statements, right?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
booo willy
"You go on and support the 13 Pentagon employee "witnesses" who claim that was Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon and that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon."
CIT Supporters? There you go again. It's not about CIT WIlly. I've visited their site MAYBE 5 times. As much as you try to make it about CIT you fail. It's about the witnesses and your refusal to even consider the testimony. Actually, I'm more concerned as to why you would spend so much energy trying to discredit CIT and push people away from eyewitness testimony about the Pentagon.
No guilt by association here. Just me observing you pushing others way and using arguments that make no sense nor do they support your accusations against CIT or your stance on ignoring these witnesses.
You label those who incorporates the 13 witnesses into their 911 World View as "CIT Supporters". Your next schtick is to slam CIT for their so-called divisiveness which, somehow, is supposed to discredit me.
Somehow that is supposed to negate the fact that 13 eyewitness reports provide valuable information that we must incorporate into our 911 investigation.
This is how the cognitive infiltration works
I said "certain" CIT supporters, JPASS, as you well know.
"beneficial cognitive diversity"
The point of b.c.d. is to interject certain aspects of the official story into the narrative of the Truth movement, get them to accept these slight variations as unquestionable truths, and slowly lead them back to the "correct" way of thinking.
It is obvious with the Blogger/TrueFaction crowd as they push people back to the official story, one campaign at a time. Currently, they are working to marginalize DRG.
In the case of CIT, JPASS shows us quite clearly what it is all about...
"Somehow that is supposed to negate the fact that 13 eyewitness reports provide valuable information that we must incorporate into our 911 investigation." JPASS
The "valuable information" is that indeed it was Flight 77 that had come to Washington and is what everyone saw flying toward the building that day. Once we accept this given, there are only two options... it hit the Pentagon or it "flew over" the Pentagon, for which there is no evidence, not even the 13 "witnesses" JPASS claims we must incorporate into our narrative.
Do you see how that works, John?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Weak Sauce Argument
An expert on "cognitive infiltration" are you?
I have no connection to CIT nor do I 'support them' any more then I support other citizen's investigation into the crimes of 9/11/2001. You can fluff this argument up with your 'argument' or whatever...keep cherry-picking and posturing but...a weak argument is just that.
At the end of the day 911 Truth has 13 more witnesses.
"This is how the cognitive infiltration works"
Wow! Glad you cleared this up for all of us. Everyone got that? That's how it works.
No. The Pentagon has 13 more "witnesses"...
... the vast majority of the Truth movement have rejected them as supporters of the OCT.
CIT failed.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Bonk
Gosh. I just never noticed how you had become such an authority on cognitive infiltration, CIT, eyewitnesses, The Truth and stuff...you obviously can accurately speak for the Vast Majority of the Truth Movement.
Sorry for so much sarcasm everyone...but this is retarded if not insulting.
I would just advise everyone...FORGET CIT...just look at the eyewitnesses and listen to what they have to say. Make your own conclusion.
Willy, I know you won the Most Likely To Be An Agent Award yesterday. I don't usually do this but you get today's trophy as well.
Right. Listen to those who claim Flight 77 hit the Pentagon...
"I would just advise everyone...FORGET CIT...just look at the eyewitnesses and listen to what they have to say."
first you plant doubts (calling everyone "disinfo" who questions the logic and the facts of CIT's "investigation") then you push the beneficial cognitive diversity (just BELIEVE the eyewitness accounts)
for future reference...
" ”We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers (1)by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby (2) introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”
… government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s regulatory czar
How many times have we heard from the TrueFaction/Blogger regime that we have to focus on their LIHOP stories because people are not going to believe us and therefore we will have no political clout? Ever heard that? Is it the majority of their argument?
Wanna know where it comes from?
"or implications for political action"
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
not sure where you get that
the vast majority dismiss the 13 NOC (north of Citgo) witnesses as supporting the OCT. In any case I agree with JPass that the 13 NOC witnesses should be kept on the record and that CIT is in one sense just the messenger since none of the witnesses claims it was not them in the videos. Like it or not, these people have made public claims. Not under oath, mind you, but it makes no sense to dismiss what they claim they saw regardless, since they might well be telling the truth, or the truth as they believe it (thinking they saw an impact when in reality there was an explosion timed with a flyover.) unlike JPass (I think) I also take seriously the possibility that both CIT and their witnesses (as well as most of the other witnesses who say a large Boeing consistent with AA77 flew into the Pentagon) are either lying or mistaken. the bottom line and where I wish people would stop wasting time is at the realization that WE CAN COME TO NO FIRM CONCLUSIONS REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON ON 9/11 AT THIS TIME. in fact, none of this is as interesting, suspicious, or damning as the absence of compelling evidence for the veracity of the official story. the more anyone ignores that in favor of beating a long-dead horse the more I'm inclined to question that person's motives, to be honest.
nothing JohnScrive
Your eyes don't lie JohnScriv. The arguments make no fucking sense to me either.
WillyLoman, who claims to know how Cognitive infiltration works and speaks for the vast majority of the truth movement, comes off so cock-sure of himself that one is forced to triple-read the comments here just to make sure they've not missed key details that pull everything together.
If you want to know about CIT you should go to them. I talked to Aldo for over an hour and he seems like a nice guy. Passionate about 911 Truth, the Pentagon issue as well as the WTC Demolitions and WTC 7.
I think the meanest baddest most divisive thing they did was post a forum message that had the names, images and online nicks of their detractors...some of them submitted info on their own...These are people who are online activists and post stuff about these issues. Pretty scary huh?
That's not to say I'm a "CIT GUY" or anything. I have no time to background-check any of these clubs and don't care to be a member.
not just mean, bad, and/or divisive...
...here is their description of "Operation Accountability", where they ask that people burn or buy a bunch of their DVDs and send them to people in government and the media. Now, imagine your run of the mill Alex Jones kool aid drinker following this advice (especially the parts I've colored blue), and tell me you think that it is going to help and not hurt the cause of 9/11 truth:
Strategy >> Operation Accountability
CIT has worked hard to provide the evidence. Now we need you to help us force accountability.
There is no sense in pushing for the federal government to investigate if their own official 9/11 explanation is false when we already have proof that this is the case, and especially when they have already refused to do this anyway. We feel the best strategy is for informed and concerned citizens to join together to put pressure on local, state, and even some federal authorities to seek indictments of those who are already directly implicated, and who are a direct link to the planners higher up the chain of command. This will undoubtedly be a challenging battle given the current political climate, so we must also simultaneously put pressure on the media to cover this information, thereby raising public awareness and helping us reach the "critical mass" of public pressure needed to compel the necessary action on the part of the authorities.
We must never forget that the evidence proves this was a successful psychological operation, and it has had an iron grip on the mainstream consciousness of America and the rest of the world since 9/11. Nevertheless, more and more people are questioning the event every day, and there are bound to be intellectually honest individuals who are both able to understand the clear implications of this evidence and also able to use their position in the media or government to do something about it. However, they aren’t going to know it exists unless we make sure it gets in their hands.
This is where you come in. Anyone can follow the steps below from the comfort of their own home. Although it is much better to use your real name and we strongly encourage this it is not completely necessary if you are not comfortable doing so . The number one thing to remember is to document as much as possible. Take dated notes with time logs and try to record any conversations while saving all written or email correspondences.
Here is an outline of a suggested strategy. Sample letters will be live soon, and will be in Rich Text Format (RTF). Copies of National Security Alert can be obtained here.
Preparation: Compile a list of media figures, authority figures, and elected representatives (politicians), both local and national. Obviously the list could be endless, so prioritize and maintain a manageable workload. Perhaps set a goal to send out letters to a certain number of individuals every week. Also, make sure to always address specific individuals by name. This is critical if we expect to ever force accountability.
Stage 1: Send each individual on your list a copy of the National Security Alert DVD, along with a personalized letter requesting that they view the evidence and respond appropriately depending on their position. Request that media people report on it. Request that elected representatives and other appropriate authorities seek indictments. If you can afford to send all or some of them registered mail that would be ideal for documentation purposes.
Stage 2: Send them a personally addressed follow up letter two weeks later asking if they received the first letter and have viewed the evidence.
Stage 3: If you have still not received a response by the time two more weeks elapse, send a third letter suggesting that their failure to respond and act on the evidence is being documented and will be published if they continue to fail to take action. Request a response by a certain deadline as to what they plan to do about the information. Be firm, but polite.
Stage 4: If you still haven’t received a response by your declared deadline, send them a final letter telling them that you are deeply disappointed that they have failed to respond appropriately and informing them that their failure to respond has been documented and will be published. The same can apply even if you have received a response and they simply refuse to act on the information. Such a failure to act on the part of politicians and authority figures is particularly problematic for them since their inaction to the information is tantamount to the crimes of obstruction of justice, misprision of treason, and misprision of a felony. Since this is the final letter, remind them of this with one final request for a response.
Stage 5: Report back to this website with your results after you feel you have exhausted all efforts with any particular individual. We will maintain a published list of individuals who have failed to respond or take action, and we will build a case for the aforementioned crimes when appropriate. The more evidence of your correspondence you can make available the stronger case we will have.
However much pressure you decide to put on any specific individual is up to you, but the more aggressive you get within legal boundaries the better. For instance, you may want to show up and confront some of the most critical individuals on your list in person if they insist on being complicit in the on-going cover-up. Get them to tell you to your face (or your video camera) exactly why they refuse to do anything about the evidence, if that is the case. This type of action is not the least bit out of line or uncalled for given that the implications of the information you are providing them with are literally a matter of life and death.
This is strictly a non-violent campaign, and again, it is an organized effort with the main goal of seeking out honest people who are able to understand the implications of this evidence and who are in a position to do something about it in the public and/or legal arenas, while putting legal pressure on those who insist on keeping this important information suppressed.
how can i not agree
Well...yea...but how can I not agree with that?
It could be said that the Alex Jones crowd you describe would be horrible representations of the 911 Truth Movement in any situation regarding any topic participating in any action.
I imagine most people are not like the Alex Jones crowd you describe.
The overall message has become "AVOID CIT AND THEIR WITNESSES". I'm not saying I'm a CIT Guy. I'm saying there is an obvious campaign going on to discredit their work. The result is that people really can come onto so-called mainstream 911 Truth websites and never even hear the accounts of these witnesses.
That is unfortunately my last comment on WTCDemolition.com. I'll continue to spread the truth about 911 as I see it but I no longer see the benefit nor have the time and energy to be a part of the 911 Truth Movement. My activity has always been mostly relegated to online discussion and debate. And in that realm, there's too much obvious manipulation of the discussion going on within the Movement. I need to spend my non-working hours off the computer and outside in the sunshine gardening and getting fresh air.
Good luck Gretavo and everyone else here. Thanks for spending your energy over the years forcing this issue into the mainstream and into the minds of people all over the world.
take care JPass!
Thanks for your contributions, and enjoy the time away from the computer. Most real truthing happens out there anyway. :)
john
Have you only become aware of their tactics through their most recent assault on DRG? I've been wondering why various 'leaders' of the movement (including yourself I'm afraid) were not condemning such obvious infiltrators for years.
Anyway, thanks for naming Gold, Albanese and Larson. Let's hope you don't become the latest boogieman on the three 9/11 sites they control with the rest of their clique. Unfortunately I don't think Blogger can be rehabilitated; the three guys ostensibly in control appear to be cover for a 'True Faction' style makeover, now almost complete.
Obviously, CD/WTC7 is the way to go.
"Obviously, CD/WTC7 is the
"Obviously, CD/WTC7 is the way to go."
Yes. I've been working with David Chandler on his new DVD and spreading it around. Last year was an intense year for the movement as we had a major shake-up at AE911Truth. These things take a lot out of you. See, we're trying to advance good research and do positive things while the infiltrators are trying their best to derail that. Infiltration is a diversion by design, and sometimes it has to addressed. We do what we can and try to read as much as we can. And have a life too. I'm boycotting 911Blogger now. I urge more people to do the same until they fully vet their mods, and frequent posters.
New 9/11 Memorial Timeline Lies About Building 7
I just wrote this article about the Memorial trying to pass off an image of Building 5 as Building 7. You might like it. Did you know that Mark Loizeaux was actually in Building 7 around the same time one of his employees was getting his explosives handler license from NYC and he also admits to having studied the construction design of the WTC prior to 9/11? All that is in the article.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/new-911-memorial-timeline-lie...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
boycotting 911Blogger
Yes I agree at this point that is probably the best idea. I've haven't even visited their new '911TruthNews' site since I went the first day and it had a gigantic MSM style picture of some supposed terrorist being arrested.
Still, diversionary tactics aside, it's good to see a few diehards on 911Blogger calling it like they see it against all the insults and downvotes. Even the usually restrained TomT has called out the 'vote club', going so far as 'evil' in Jeff Hill&YT's latest thread..
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-23/jesse-ventura-s-fake-phone-calls-c...
btw, I was concerned to learn David Chandler is now a co-admin with Jeff Hill on a 9/11 Facebook page. I'm not sure what that actually means, but the point is Jeff is DJ 'Shure', an eager acolyte of the faction who has posted audio of himself aggressively screaming at witnesses down the phone to the internet, used his 'PumpItOut' website and radio show to push 'no planes at the WTC' for years, claimed people jumping from the towers were 'robot mannequins', that Ted Olson's new wife is actually his dead wife with plastic surgery, etc. These days he spends his time 'pumping' 911Blogger full of CIT/Pentagon threads and FBI documents about Muslim hijackers that he insists people should focus on instead of CD (like Jon Gold does).
YT is 'Cosmos', real name unknown except to core members of Truth Action, which he founded...
Mr. Parulis, I would like to ask a question or two...
... relating to what happened at AE911Truth during the infiltration you speak of. I don't want to get into the gory details, but mentioned two aspects that I want to clarify.
First, you said that this really started right about the time that AE911Truth was heading into their big news conference events marking the 1000 signatures of engineers and architects calling for a new investigation. Did they come in with the purpose of disrupting that event you think? And, in a related question, what was the general reaction at AE to Prof. Jones' decision to use the press conference to voice his interest in earthquake weapons? I could tell from the video of that, that Richard did not look to happy at that table.
Second, you said that about a year ago this whole thing came to a head and that these two people ended up leaving (I think that is what you said), but it seems that others, like yourself, ended up leaving as well, some by choice, some not.
Why is it that once you figured out these two guys, why is it that others had to leave as well or want to leave? Just curious. Thanks.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
John, please. All I'm
John, please.
All I'm prepared to say about AE911Truth at this point is what I've already stated in the interview. My objective is to create a better awareness of the dangers of infiltration to the Truth Movement and ways to guard against it, like better vetting standards that we all can use.
Moderators, especially those on high profile 9/11 sites should be open about their backgrounds and activist histories and affiliations with other activist groups.
lol
But didn't JohnP claim some sort of authority on infiltration and disinformation or something? Little late to the party if you ask me.
Anyone who has recently 'come to their senses' about the tactics being used by 911Blogger is not paying much attention. I'm not an expert though.
I think you need to listen
I think you need to listen to the interview again.
Infiltration Experts
"I've been wondering why various 'leaders' of the movement (including yourself I'm afraid) were not condemning such obvious infiltrators for years."
I would like to add my thoughts here if you don't mind.
I've been wondering this myself. But I see how it works now. Each time there is an obvious move to purge certain users or discussion from a website community...there are a few 'well knowns' that end up 'coming to their senses' after the fact. These users usually claim things that contradict their current position. For example, they might claim they are skilled and keen on detecting infiltration and other tactics. But...by golly...they were just too busy being super-911-Truthers...and they missed what was going on.
Woops. But trust them...they are infiltration experts.
You are really starting to sound like Aldo, JPASS
... slinging unfounded allegations, calling CIT "American Heros" for risking their lives to bring us the "Truth" of 13 witnesses who say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Let me ask you a question... how exactly are these two guys who work for an online marketing company "risking their lives" by reporting on an investigation that the Pentagon supported by giving them an escort and allowing them to "interview" selected Pentagon and Department of the Army employees?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Mr. Parulis,
I found out about your work because of the recent events on 911blogger.com. I think that the sometimes unclear line between efforts for personal financial profit or non-profit and how this is effecting those involved may be having a stronger influence on what we're looking at here than most people give credit to. I request that you make this topic part of your conversation with Mr. Fletcher.
regarding this:
John P - "Tod Fletcher (assisted David Ray Griffin on writing 8 books"
I'm asking you this here because when I saw what you wrote above I immediately wondered whether Mr. Fletcher was payed for his services or whether he worked for no pay to support the Truth Movement. I ask you to make this point a part of your conversation as well. Thank you.
Peace,
Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/
You all can call me John.
You all can call me John. Mr. P is too formal.
DRG or for that matter, anyone making money off of 9/11 books is not gettig rich doing that. I would rather focus on the scum bags who made millions on put options from the sale of United and American stock just before 9/11. The useless SEC just dropped any investigation of the rather compelling evidence they had on that. Surprise surprise surprise.
O.K., John.
Thank you for your response. I listened to your show with Mr. Fletcher from start to finish.
John Parulis - "...I still carry that idealism. It's been tempered by years decades of experience...", "If your going to be a truth activist you better be a truth activist through and through to your very soul."
mp3
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/resistanceradio/2011/02/24/911-in-context-w...
John also,
I was particularly taken with your story regarding Hindu Mythology at 49:00. I ask you now to look at these two manifestations
Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth
Artists for 9/11 Truth
in that light.
Yes, I've seen those sites.
Yes, I've seen those sites. Though I'm not so sure how much a liability Charlie Sheen must now be. Artists change the world.
Art moves people in ways that nothing else does. Art can bridge the gap between seeing the Truth of 9/11 and staying boxed in away from it. Of these art forms, I believe music is the most effective because it goes into the head and into the heart right away like good medicine.
I was asking you
to watch us eat, sir.
9/11 Analysis music
Did you handle the music for the new DVD John? I haven't seen it yet but will place an order tomorrow.
paul,
i assume you are also banned from 911b now?
Hey, jameson.
I don't know. Unless something has changed since my last effort there on 02/21/2011, I think that I can still post and it goes up immediately.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-f...
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-19/ed-asner-wants-actors-new-911-movi...
maybe they're busy
the powers that be over there usually ban anyone who posts here, or even mentions this site in a non negative light
maybe they're busy
the powers that be over there usually ban anyone who posts here, or even mentions this site in a non negative light
it already seems you're being lined up as a 'zihopper' for your efforts by the lamentable douglas hilton..
"is that a zihop star of david up on the easel?"